Delhi High Court
Praleen Chopra vs Dr Joginder Bajaj on 12 May, 2016
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 4th February, 2016
Judgment Delivered on: 12th May, 2016
+ FAO(OS) 9/2016 & CM No.808/2016 (stay)
PRALEEN CHOPRA ..... Appellant
Versus
DR JOGINDER BAJAJ .....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Appellant-in-person
For the Respondent: Mr Parag Tripathi, Sr Advocate with Mr Rakesh Aggarwal
and Mr Raghavendra M. Bajaj, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
1. The appellant has impugned the order dated 23.12.2015, passed
by a learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has
clarified that the respondent would, for the time being, be in
possession of the basement, ground floor, third floor and terrace of the
property bearing No. F-4 (earlier C-51), Maharani Bagh, New Delhi-
110065 (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property') and other
specific areas allocated in terms of the collaboration agreement and
further directed that the respondent would be in actual physical
=====================================================================
possession after the preparation of the report of the Local
Commissioner.
2. The respondent is the plaintiff and the appellant is the
defendant in the subject suit. The respondent had filed the suit
claiming the reliefs inter alia seeking a money decree in the sum of
Rs 5,92,06,611/- together with pendente lite and future interest @
18% per annum w.e.f. 21.08.2015 and a further sum of Rs
3,84,67,742/- towards damages. The respondent had further sought a
decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing the appellant to
remove his men, material and equipment from the suit property.
3. A collaboration agreement was entered into between the
respondent as an owner and the appellant as a builder for
redevelopment/reconstruction of the suit property. The collaboration
agreement was followed by a supplementary collaboration agreement
dated 09.04.2012 and further supplementary agreements dated
14.11.2012 and 14.08.2013. There are certain disputes with regard to
the reasons for execution of the supplementary agreements. However,
since the same are not germane to the disposal of the present appeal,
we are not adverting to such disputes.
4. In terms of the agreements between the parties, what is not in
dispute is that consequent to the completion of construction by the
appellant, the allocation of the respondent in the said property is inter
=====================================================================
alia the entire basement, the entire ground floor, entire stilt area
(except for certain areas mentioned in the agreement), entire third
floor, entire terrace etc. and the allocation of the appellant/builder is
inter alia the entire first floor, entire second floor, etc. It is not in
dispute that the first floor of the said property has already been sold
by the appellant with the consent/knowledge of the respondent and
there is no dispute qua the same.
5. The respondent filed the subject suit contending that the
appellant had not completed the construction and had not paid the
entire consideration agreed to under the collaboration agreement read
with supplementary agreements. The appellant is disputing the
amount of consideration to be paid. However, for the purposes of
disposal of the appeal, we are not referring to the said dispute. On
03.09.2015, the learned Single Judge had appointed a Local
Commissioner alongwith an Architect to ascertain the extent of work
already executed in the suit property and further finishing work
required.
6. On 05.10.2015, the learned Single Judge recorded that the issue
boiled down to both the parties completing their respective part of
bargain i.e. the appellant giving the portions/flats falling in the share
of the respondent in a finished state as per the agreement and the
respondent giving all necessary papers required by the appellant to
=====================================================================
enable the appellant to transfer the second floor of the suit property to
the purchaser of the second floor. The parties thereafter made
endeavours to settle the disputes through mediation, however, the
same did not fructify into a settlement.
7. By the impugned order dated 23.12.2015, the learned Single
Judge clarified that the respondent would, for the time being, be in
possession of the basement, ground floor, third floor and terrace of the
suit property alongwith other specific areas allocated in terms of the
collaboration agreement. Noting the contention of the appellant that
further work had been done in the portion allocated to the respondent,
the learned Single Judge appointed the same Local Commissioner and
the Architect to carry out a fresh inspection of the suit property.
8. The appellant is aggrieved by the said order inasmuch as the
said order does not deal with the appellant's allocation of the suit
property and the respondent's execution of the requisite documents to
enable the appellant to transfer his allocation.
9. By order dated 08.01.2016, we had directed the appellant to
deposit the keys of the entire suit property except the first floor before
this Court and also directed the Local Commissioners to furnish their
reports before us also. The needful was done. An amicable resolution
of the dispute was attempted even by us, however, the same was not
possible.
=====================================================================
10. The disputes between the parties have been narrowed down to a
great extent. The claim of the respondent in the suit is with respect to
the alleged balance consideration of approximately Rs 5.9 crores
under the collaboration agreement and the supplementary agreements
and the alleged damages of Rs 3.8 crores for delay in construction and
for completion of the respondent's allocation in the suit property.
11. On perusal of the reports furnished by the Local
Commissioners, prima facie, it is evident that the entire allocation
falling to the share of the respondent is complete. However, there
seems to be a minor work required in the servant's room on the
terrace.
12. On the part of the respondent, the respondent has to execute
documents in favour of the appellant enabling the appellant to deal
with and also dispose of the second floor and the other allocation
falling to the share of the appellant. As per the respondent, the
appellant has to pay the balance sale consideration under the
collaboration and supplementary agreements. It is contended that the
cheques in the sum of Rs 4 crores had been issued by the appellant,
however, the same had been returned unencashed.
13. To balance equities and to further resolve some of the pending
disputes, we dispose of the appeal by directing as under:-
=====================================================================
(i) the appellant shall provide to the respondent a draft
of all the documents required by the appellant for
the purposes of transfer of the second floor within
a period of one week from today;
(ii) the respondent shall execute the documents and
deposit the same with this Court in the Suit
(CS(OS) 2670/2015) within a period of ten days of
supply of the draft of the documents;
(iii) on deposit of the documents by the respondent
with this Court, the respondent shall be handed
over, by the registry of this court, the keys of the
basement, ground floor, third floor and terrace of
the suit property forthwith;
(iv) the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs 7.5 crores
with the Registrar General of this Court, on such
deposit being made, the said amount shall be kept
in an interest bearing fixed deposit initially for a
period of 366 days to be renewed from time to
time till further directions by the learned Single
Judge. The amount shall be subject to the outcome
of the suit i.e. CS(OS) 2670/2015;
(v) on deposit of the said amount of Rs 7.5 crores, the
appellant shall be handed over, by the registry of
this court, the keys of the second floor and also all
the documents referred to in para (ii) hereinabove;
(vi) on deposit of the said amount of Rs 7.5 crores, the
appellant shall have the right to deal with the said
second floor in any manner he deems fit.
(vii) The appellant shall complete the balance work
required to be carried out in the servant's room
=====================================================================
falling to the allocation of the respondent within
ten days from today, if not already completed.
14. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no
order as to costs.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
MAY 12, 2016 BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.
st
=====================================================================
